The following excerpts raise some interesting questions. (Some excerpts are grouped by theme and not in their original order. Apologies if any critical context is lost.)
* Does any group of humans, particularly age cohorts, deserve or require special treatment and/or care relative to others? Unc: A few days ago I did nothing more than suggest that children are no more entitled to decent treatment than any other human being Spraig: Actually, you said quite clearly that non-consensual sex with children was no worse than non-consensual sex with adults. Protection of children, especially from sexual preditors, is a pretty universal thing to expect, at least in Western societies. * Qualifying sex as "non-consensual" implies that the argument is not true for "the other half" of the general category. Does the above imply that consensual sex with children is worse than consensual sex with adults? * If not, why was the qualification made: is the point being made uncategorical, "(all forms of) sex with children was no worse than (all forms of) sex with adults." ? * If consensual sex (by adults) with children is deemed to be worse than consensual sex between adults, how does that effect the premise (above) that "children are no more entitled to decent treatment than any other human being " * Is consensual sex between older adults (40 -60) and younger "adults" aka "legally able to consent" (18-25) "bad" in all instances? * Are there situations where the above could be good? For both parties. * What are the criteria for "good" and "bad" in this context? * Is consensual sex "bad" if both parties do not find benefit from the relationship regardless of age? * Is consensual sex "bad" if one or both parties find some benefits and some downside from the relationship regardless of age? * Should "outside" others be concerned, judge, comment, confront and/or gossip on what they view as inappropriate sex between consenting adults? * Regardless of age? * Should "outside" others be concerned, judge, comment, confront nd/or gossip on sex between a consenting adult and a legally consenting minor (18-21 in many states, 16-21 in some states)? [Hence forth the term adult refers to those at or above age 21. The term "adult" refers to those of legally consenting age.] Spraig: What licentious behavior and why do you care? Anonymousff: Bevan and Hagelin are infamous womanizers. They have not limited themselves to single women, they have no scruples, or at least they didn't for a looong time, about whose wife they sleep with. It has been going on for years, it has been talked about for years, it has been hashed and rehashed, it is not rumors, marriages have broken up over it. And no one says anything or cares about it. * Is sex between consenting adults or "adults", regardless of age differentials, acceptable absent some situations such as: adultery, large power differentials (economic, evaluation or grading, psychological, teaching relationship, etc), incest, prostitution? Rick: Yeah, but it's the old thing of a charismatic, powerful man wowing out an impressionable younger woman. Whether or not Monica came on to him, Bill acted irresponsibly. * If Clinton were divorced and out of office, and had a relationship with a woman of Monica's age, would this still be "irresponsible"? In other words, does the irresponsibility have to do with adultery, having sex in the oval office, large power differentials (including employer power)? Or is basically any consensual sex irresponsible where there is a large age differential? Shempmcgurk: Obviously, women should lose the vote. They are not full human beings with free choice. Peter: While it is certainly boorish behavior and I do not support it in the least, the ladies can say no. Sparaig: Women aren't stupid. They're generally well aware of what kind of guy they are sleeping with by the time they are 18-20 or so. Why is it your concern? Rick: A friend of mine who is a respected, long-time MUM faculty member said that even recently young coeds have been coming to him in tears, because Hagelin has slept with them and then dumped them. So it still goes on. * Do women of consensual age need "protecting"? * Do men of consensual age need "protecting"? * Should women (or men) of consensual age be allowed to make their own "mistakes" and learn from them? If not, at what age should they be able to? * If the younger woman (or man) is as, or more, sexually experienced as the older partner, does that change any of the above? * To what extent to J and B's sexual and "dating" reputation preceed them? Are there any/ many women who "date" them who are unaware of the reputation and what they are getting into? * Its postulated that various "segments" of woman might consensually sleep with a figure such as JH: i) really likes and admires him, always had a crush on him, ii) loves his mind, want to be around him iii) looking for a good Saturday night fling with no attachments, iv) curious as to "how he is", v) wants a good story to tell peers, vi) feels proximity to J may give her special status and access in the TMO, vii) wants to marry J. Do women in any of the above segments need "protection" from being "used and dumped"? * To what extent does the "gatekeeper" role of J and B (and others), that is "access to higher levels of TMO activity and knowledge, give J and B unfair leverage? Sparaig: So why do YOU care? Were you one of the women? One of the men who was cuckolded? Anonymousff: Why would I care? Hmm, let's see...perhaps because of the unbelievable pompousness of HE the Honorable Dr. Morris when he arrogantly enforces policy that he creates while he seems to feel he is immune from the basics of respectful behavior as in please leave the wives of others alone and stop calling ladies into your office and propositioning them. Spraig: Sounds pretty hypocrtical to me, yes, but why can't you just laugh it off as one of life's little ironies, and move on? TurquoiseB: I don't care. But some do. And they feel that having leaders of the movement that they were part rules might bring the validity of that movement into question. "sparaig": Then they expect more of the TMO leadership then they expect of most other people. TurquoiseB: .They *should* expect more from the TMO leadership. They should expect *at least* the same dedication to the teachings that they displayed in their lives. They *should* expect that people who stand up in front of the world and claim that practicing TM will result in "ideal behavior" should demonstrate *some* semblance of "ideal behavior" in their lives. They should expect *exemplary* behavior. TurquoiseB I'm trying to get you to see that this is rather an emotional issue for a lot of people here, in ways that it is NOT an emotional issue for you because you haven't put your money where your mouth is in the way that they have. "jyouells2000": Wow, is that a long way around, just for 'leveling'. No just better than unethical, immoral and illegal. ... It's really not complicated. It's about integrity. Does that lack of integrity spill into what they are teaching? As a leader, do they walk the talk? "markmeredith2002: The talks by TM leadership unequivically state that the practice of MMY's programs by an individual create "ideal behavior" and "total support of the laws of nature" leading to the "inability to make a mistake" and "unlimited progress and success" and on the broader level "invincibility to the nation", "heaven on earth", and the "elimination of all problems on earth" and so on, Given the above statements, you might look to the effect of these programs on the lives of the people who have been practicing them the longest and with the most dedication to verify the claims. You would also look to the organization itself to gauge the broader societal promises. If there's a large discrepency, then that's called hypocrisy. * How does hypocritical behavior of others, outside of an organizational context, effect you? * Does the above require or warrant our judgement, comments or actions? * Does that change if it is within an organizational context that is leaders not walking the talk? If so, how does it affect you? * How can / should it be dealt with? What are your options? Peter (re: Do you think that Bevan and John engage in lecentious behavior and why do you care?) Well, they do or they did. That is quite well known. However your last question, if phrased, ..."why do we care?" is very interesting if not used simply as a defensive posture. Why do we care? Why do we hold Bevan, John and MMY accountable to a certain standard? It is apparently much more of an idealized fantasy that we have than an authentic need that they have. * Is the condition of "older guys NOT having consensual sex with younger women" a criteria of "ideal behavior" (irrespective of organizational "hypocrisy" issues) ? * Is it (above) a necessary criteria of "enlightenment? Is it a universal truth? * Is consensual sex between younger and older partners a "relative value", dependent on social context? * What are other things about consensual sex between younger and older partners that bother you? Is there deeper issues you are dealing with respect to this issue? * And finally, are your responses to all above questions internally consistent? Want to revise any? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/